Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Archaeological Evidence For Moses


  • Please log in to reply
296 replies to this topic

#31    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,997 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 15 January 2010 - 12:05 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 14 January 2010 - 11:57 PM, said:



:w00t: Yes, sinewave, I should've written "before." That was really quite idiotic of me. A big thanks for pointing that out. :tu:


We'll let it slide just this once.  :)  As always, your post is informative and interesting.

Edited by sinewave, 15 January 2010 - 12:22 AM.


#32    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,266 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 15 January 2010 - 01:06 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 14 January 2010 - 11:48 PM, said:

Manetho always presents a good example of why one must be wary when consulting literature of the Classical period as source material. It is generally unreliable. A person well acquainted with pharaonic history can easily spot the many errors in material written by Manetho, Herodotus, and others. They are not really to be blamed because they were not quite historians as we think of the term. It is no exaggeration to say we modern people who study the history have a much clearer and more reliable understanding of ancient Egyptian history than Manetho did. Some examples:



The Hebrews and Hyksos were two completely different people. The word "Hyksos" is a Greek corruption of the original Egypt HKA-xAswt, which does not mean "shepherds" but literally "foreign rulers." They were pastoralists just as the Egyptians were, but Manetho was clearly confused as to the source. Born in the Delta and serving his Macedonian masters in Alexandria, it's quite possible Manetho never saw the inscriptions at sites much farther south in Egypt where the battle narratives existed from the time of the Hyksos. These inscriptions are well known to historians today.

The first identifiable Hyksos are shown on tomb walls dating to the Middle Kingdom, around Dynasty 12. They are depicted as pastoralists leading livestock and wagons full of possessions, migrating into Egypt. The particular relief of which I'm thinking even identifies the man up front as HKA-xAst, the leader of this particular band of migrants. There was no sweeping invasion of Egypt on their part. Rather, all evidence suggests the Hyksos had been settling down in Egypt long before they assumed power of Lower Egypt. They were growing strong as Egypt was growing weak, and they took advantage. Archaeology of Avaris and other Hyksos centers clearly shows most of these people were from the southern Levant, and their burials and architecture directly reflect the veneration of Baal and other Canaanite deities.

There is no Hebraic association. The Hebrews would not exist for a long time after the Hyksos were expelled. They were not resettled in Jerusalem, a pagan Canaanite village at that time, but were violently attacked all the way deep into the Levant as they retreated. The goal of Ahmose I wasn't to resettle them but to exterminate them.



No such evidence exists. "Osarsiph" is the name Manetho gives to the priest who supposedly created monotheism in Egypt and upset the natural order of the Egyptians, but it's clear Manetho did not possess any sort of reliable historical record. Obviously he was working from a dim memory of Akhenaten, the heretic king, most of whose life would have been completely forgotten by the time Manetho lived. At most there would have been oral traditions of a heretic king who proscribed the worship of important gods in the murky depths of their own ancient history.



There were several kings who went by the name Amunhotep (Akhenaten among them), and we know a great deal about them all. Nothing from their reigns would corroborate the above statement. Again, Manetho may have been working from mostly lost history, but I've always found the line about the lepers to be a bit interesting. One working theory for why Akhenaten built a brand-new capital at a virgin site, was the probability of plague striking the land at the time. It was almost certainly happening in the time of the previous king, Amunhotep III. Most likely Asiatics migrating from the Levant brought the plague with them. The theory states that the gods had failed the Egyptians and were allowing the plague to wreak havoc, so Akhenaten changed his loyalty to the Aten and built a new city on untouched ground to venerate that god. It's just a theory and there is no definitive evidence to support it, but it's more reliable on all levels than Manetho's statement.



Jerusalem was a Canaanite village at this time. There is no connection to the Hebrews, who did not exist yet. And if we're trying to place this in the time of the Hyksos, the Egyptians were already giving the Hyksos a hell of a beating, so it's quite unrealistic to think that a little village in the highlands of the Levant would want to take on the might of the new Egyptian army.

There was a king in the Late Period who did in fact flee to Nubia when Egypt was invaded the first time by the Persians and Manetho was probably familiar with this event--he lived only a short time later--but it has nothing to do with the time of the Hyksos.

To sum it up, Manetho's account is not a reliable work of history in most respects. He was probably familiar with the figure of Moses from the early Old Testament of the Hebrews, which was first put into written words long before Manetho lived, so as with other Classical writers Manetho was drawing from other traditions when rendering his history.

To regard Manetho's work as factual history is a mistake from the get-go. It simply must be supplemented with modern archaeology and philology, the sum of which paint for us a much clearer picture of history in ancient Egypt.

Would that have been Nechtanebo II, or was there another who fled to Nubia?

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#33    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,287 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 15 January 2010 - 01:34 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 15 January 2010 - 01:06 AM, said:

Would that have been Nechtanebo II, or was there another who fled to Nubia?

cormac

Yeah, that's the guy. Thanks for clarifying it. I couldn't remember when I was posting at work whether it was Nectanebo I or II and decided to wait till I got home to look that up for myself. You beat me to it.

And don't tell my boss I was posting at work. The punishment for that is impalement or having to throw out all my books and buy only fringe crap from now on, so naturally I'd choose impalement. Still, it'd be an awfully messy end. :w00t:

It also occurs to me that the subject of this thread is "Archaeological Evidence for Moses." Despite my usual verbosity in the above posts, the question is exceedingly easy to answer. As "archaeology" means the excavation of sites to reveal knowledge, we can say flat out that there is no archaeological evidence for Moses. Archaeology has never produced such evidence, period.

I know, I'm being picky.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#34    OhZone

OhZone

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 41 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 January 2010 - 02:12 AM

View Postjaylemurph, on 14 January 2010 - 11:24 PM, said:

That book was published in 2003. It's hardly new. Nor is one statement taken totally out of context, hardly a ringing endorsement of current academic consensus. Nor is someone saying "There are people who believe X" make that X an actual point of debate for people who know what they're talking about.



Well, at least the first book was written in this century. It's a typical trick of pseudo-historian fringe writers to rely on out-of-date or exploded theories. You could cite any number of 19th Century texts to make it look like there's an active debate on whether the Irish or African-Americans are legitimately human: that doesn't make it so.

--Jaylemurph
Sorry if you don't like my info.
As anything new?
Do you really think there will ever be anything new?
There is only the re-examination of what is already in the record.
If a skeleton was found in the area where Moses was supposedly killed, do you think it could be proven that it was his?


#35    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,287 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 15 January 2010 - 02:47 AM

View PostOhZone, on 15 January 2010 - 02:12 AM, said:

Sorry if you don't like my info.
As anything new?
Do you really think there will ever be anything new?
There is only the re-examination of what is already in the record.
If a skeleton was found in the area where Moses was supposedly killed, do you think it could be proven that it was his?

I beg to differ. Most Egyptologists currently engaged in excavations and research believe that to this point, we may have found only around 40% of what's out there. Some Egyptologists believe it's even less. Suffice it to say, there will always be something new coming to light. Our grandkids' grandkids' grandkids' could be digging there some day, and still have plenty to find.

I've been researching ancient Egypt for around 25 years now and am familiar with many of the mysteries that still remain. We are far from having all of the answers, and only further excavations and research, properly conducted, will provide more answers.

By the way, that book, The Seventy Great Mysteries of Ancient Egypt, is very good. I've had it on my shelf for years, a very enjoyable read. If you absorbed all of the information from it, I should think you'd know for yourself that a great deal of mystery remains, and a great deal remains to be found.

In quoting the book in Post 22 of this thread, you wrote:

Quote

"Since antiquity, many writers have tried to associate Moses with Akhenaten ... Manetho, who claimed that the founder of monotheism - whom he called Osarsiph - assumed the name Moses, and led his folllowers out of Egypt in Akhenaten's reign. The spectre of Akhenaten was also transformed into Moses by writers such as Lysimachus, Tacitus and Strabo."

When quoting from a professional source, be sure to balance the equation if a balance is there. For instance, that chapter also says (Donner; ed. Manley 2003: 274):

Quote

No connection is actually stated in the Old Testament, and no direct evidence of Moses has ever been found in Egypt...The Old Testament offers no hint of a relationship with Akhenaten, and it is even debatable whether its authors could have known about him at all.

This chapter, called "Was Moses at the court of Akhenaten," seeks to provide a look at what can and cannot be found, so the author tries to provide that balance I mentioned. Donner ends, however, with this note (ibid: 276):

Quote

In this sense we may wonder whether he [Moses] is not historically more 'real' than the likes of Achilles, Agamemnon or Hector. Nevertheless, if one were to seek a genuinely historical founder of Hebrew monotheism influenced by a foreign culture, one would certainly not find him at the court of Akhenaten.

What the author leaves unsaid, in fact, is that monotheistic Judaism was probably much more a result of exposure to Persian Zoroastrianism than to any practice of religion in Egypt. What we see in the highlands of Judah prior to the Hebrews' captivity in Babylon was definitely a form of henotheism. Only after Cyrus the Great released the Jews from Babylon do we see the people of Judah embrace a true form of monotheism, and that was many centuries after the time of Akhenaten.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#36    SlimJim22

SlimJim22

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,682 posts
  • Joined:10 Dec 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales

  • "As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." Carl Jung

Posted 15 January 2010 - 11:02 AM

View PostOhZone, on 15 January 2010 - 02:12 AM, said:

Sorry if you don't like my info.
As anything new?
Do you really think there will ever be anything new?
There is only the re-examination of what is already in the record.
If a skeleton was found in the area where Moses was supposedly killed, do you think it could be proven that it was his?
Archeologists please clarify for me: Is everything that ever was to be found fossilized I didn't think so. Anything burnt, washed away by water or just left open to the elements will degrade and dissappear. Only that which is buried gets fossilized awaiting discovery in most cases. This could have been why Kings were so often buried in tombs while ordinary individuals could have been cremated on funeral pyres.

As far as Moses goes the legend states that he went away into his secret tomb in Mt Sinai awaiting the day of judgement much like the story of Arthur.

As for Ahkenaton, despite similarities with Moses and Abram he can almost certainly be pinned down to Ikhenaton father of Tutankhamun. There is more reason to conclude that did exist than did not. However archeological proof would be tricky and nothing short of the bronze serpent or Ten Commandments would satisfy most people. That is their perogative and historical or mythological character he has surely left his mark and that cannot be denied.

"I belive no thing, I follow the Law of One. I am a Man-O'-Sion under construction."

#37    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,408 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 15 January 2010 - 12:11 PM

View PostSlimJim22, on 15 January 2010 - 11:02 AM, said:

Archeologists please clarify for me: Is everything that ever was to be found fossilized I didn't think so. Anything burnt, washed away by water or just left open to the elements will degrade and dissappear. Only that which is buried gets fossilized awaiting discovery in most cases. This could have been why Kings were so often buried in tombs while ordinary individuals could have been cremated on funeral pyres.

This isn't fossilisation. Fossilisation occurs when bone is turned chemically into rock (I think), and takes millions and millions of years.

The Egyptian dead were embalmed.

Kmt, I've tried to read through as much as possible, sorry if I missed this, but forgetting Moses for a while, is there any evidence that monotheism originated in Egypt?

Edited by Emma_Acid, 15 January 2010 - 12:11 PM.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#38    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,345 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 15 January 2010 - 03:47 PM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 15 January 2010 - 12:11 PM, said:

This isn't fossilisation. Fossilisation occurs when bone is turned chemically into rock (I think), and takes millions and millions of years.

The Egyptian dead were embalmed.

Kmt, I've tried to read through as much as possible, sorry if I missed this, but forgetting Moses for a while, is there any evidence that monotheism originated in Egypt?

I can answer that fast: NO.

We know that Egypt was the first country to have an (almost) monotheistic state religion.

It is still a matter of debate if there was first a monotheistic religion that got muddled up by "saints" who were promoted to gods (very likely) or the idea of god came by the veneration of the ancestor's spirits.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#39    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,345 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 15 January 2010 - 03:50 PM

View PostSlimJim22, on 15 January 2010 - 11:02 AM, said:

However archeological proof would be tricky and nothing short of the bronze serpent or Ten Commandments would satisfy most people. That is their perogative and historical or mythological character he has surely left his mark and that cannot be denied.

Archeologists would be very happy if they would find remnants of a tribe that did not eat pork in the middle East around that time. So far the earliest finds are from about 1000 BCE.

If they they eat pork they are not Jews.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#40    SlimJim22

SlimJim22

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,682 posts
  • Joined:10 Dec 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales

  • "As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." Carl Jung

Posted 15 January 2010 - 04:20 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 15 January 2010 - 03:50 PM, said:

Archeologists would be very happy if they would find remnants of a tribe that did not eat pork in the middle East around that time. So far the earliest finds are from about 1000 BCE.

If they they eat pork they are not Jews.
D'uh... I have had this conversation on here before. Were Moses' people jews? No they were not they were hebrews or Israelites. Where in the Ten Commandments does it say Thou shalt not eat swine. It doesn't, you must be refering to the Torah and Talmud. The Talmud being the scripture that gave the most advice for practical living in which the law of Kosher was found. This is probably during the time of the captivity in Babylon.

Eaxctly what sort of artefacts do you think could be found to evidence a non pork eating people in pre history? As I have said whar we find is not all there ever was. It could in fact only be a small proportion, they could have sustained themselves of largely biodegradable housing and tools. However, we do know from scripture that the Israelites were familiar with metallurgy from prety early on but the world is a big place and there are plenty of holes ready to be dug in that area that could prove such things.

"I belive no thing, I follow the Law of One. I am a Man-O'-Sion under construction."

#41    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 8,673 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 15 January 2010 - 05:33 PM

View PostSlimJim22, on 15 January 2010 - 04:20 PM, said:

D'uh... I have had this conversation on here before. Were Moses' people jews? No they were not they were hebrews or Israelites. Where in the Ten Commandments does it say Thou shalt not eat swine. It doesn't, you must be refering to the Torah and Talmud. The Talmud being the scripture that gave the most advice for practical living in which the law of Kosher was found. This is probably during the time of the captivity in Babylon.

Eaxctly what sort of artefacts do you think could be found to evidence a non pork eating people in pre history? As I have said whar we find is not all there ever was. It could in fact only be a small proportion, they could have sustained themselves of largely biodegradable housing and tools. However, we do know from scripture that the Israelites were familiar with metallurgy from prety early on but the world is a big place and there are plenty of holes ready to be dug in that area that could prove such things.

You really are the living embodiment of Pope's warning about "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Going by the only text that mentions Moses, he was *there* when god gave the dietary and cultural laws that define the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. I mean, if you're going to pretend you know what you're talking about, at least get your story straight. If you want to believe the Bible, believe the Bible; if you want to resort to history, resort to history, but your ignorant mix of the two is an affront to both and serves no other purpose that to make you look fool in the worst possible way.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#42    SlimJim22

SlimJim22

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,682 posts
  • Joined:10 Dec 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales

  • "As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." Carl Jung

Posted 15 January 2010 - 05:47 PM

View Postjaylemurph, on 15 January 2010 - 05:33 PM, said:

You really are the living embodiment of Pope's warning about "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Going by the only text that mentions Moses, he was *there* when god gave the dietary and cultural laws that define the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. I mean, if you're going to pretend you know what you're talking about, at least get your story straight. If you want to believe the Bible, believe the Bible; if you want to resort to history, resort to history, but your ignorant mix of the two is an affront to both and serves no other purpose that to make you look fool in the worst possible way.

--Jaylemurph
Like I have said time and again the comments that I post are not the sole extent of my thoughts or knowledge. Indeed the Lord would have given Moses the run down of the Law (icluding dietary). The reason for this has made me ponder one of our longest held beliefs about the 'Jews'. Did they not eat pork because the Romans had them eating sewage or was there more to it? Was pig farming even wide spread in egypt and Sinai for one to make such specific laws? Wild boars would have been better game, which leads me to my question did they not eat Boar because it was deemed unclean or in fact because it was revered?

I can't believe you used the Pope to insult me. I don't claim to get all my facts straight but do you consider my opinions/suggestions insanity and harmful to developing minds? My view is don't believe what you are told figure it out for yourself. In my case that could take an awfully long time.

"I belive no thing, I follow the Law of One. I am a Man-O'-Sion under construction."

#43    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,345 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 15 January 2010 - 07:06 PM

View PostSlimJim22, on 15 January 2010 - 04:20 PM, said:

D'uh... I have had this conversation on here before. Were Moses' people jews? No they were not they were hebrews or Israelites. Where in the Ten Commandments does it say Thou shalt not eat swine. It doesn't, you must be refering to the Torah and Talmud. The Talmud being the scripture that gave the most advice for practical living in which the law of Kosher was found. This is probably during the time of the captivity in Babylon.

Eaxctly what sort of artefacts do you think could be found to evidence a non pork eating people in pre history? As I have said whar we find is not all there ever was. It could in fact only be a small proportion, they could have sustained themselves of largely biodegradable housing and tools. However, we do know from scripture that the Israelites were familiar with metallurgy from prety early on but the world is a big place and there are plenty of holes ready to be dug in that area that could prove such things.

Wow, I really must say. So, according to you the Deuteronomy was not from Moses, and if it was it seez nowhere :" Thou shalt not east from the swine nor from the eagle..." ?

And no, not artifacts gnawed bones is all you have to find. If you find a settlement without gnawed pig bones in its thrash pit and you can date it before 500 CE then you have found a Jewish settlement (if after it also could be a Muslim settlement).

Your knowledge about archeology should be expanded before trying to sell us that one.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#44    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 5,467 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 15 January 2010 - 08:52 PM

Jaylemurph, not to be critical, only helpful..

According to:  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091119191058AAjvsJo   and 'Jeopardy' , this morning.. :)
   The Alexander Pope Quote is actually...

"Pride, where wit fails, steps in to our defense,
And fills up all the mighty void of sense.
If once right reason drives that cloud away,
Truth breaks upon us with resistless day.
Trust not yourself; but your defects to know,

Make use of every friend--and every foe.
A little  learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#45    OhZone

OhZone

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 41 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Florida

Posted 16 January 2010 - 01:29 AM

Kmt, are you familiar with the authors of this article:
http://oi.uchicago.e...in95_wente.html

WHO WAS WHO AMONG THE ROYAL MUMMIES
By Edward F. Wente, Professor, The Oriental Institute
and the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations
The University of Chicago
(This article originally appeared in The Oriental Institute News and Notes, No. 144, Winter 1995, and is made available electronically with the permission of the editor.)

In studying the bone structure they  are suggesting that some of the mummies have been misidentified.
I thought of this possibility when I was doing my paintings.  The one that really bothered me was Amenhotep III.  He really does look more like he should be the son of Amenhotep II.  However I read that he was son of Thutmose IV and was of mixed race, so I showed him that way.  

There are also theories that either the Biblical Patriarchs WERE the Pharaohs or that they were real or fictional characters modeled on the Biographies of the Pharaohs.  

And then, what do you know about those Egyptian Zodiacs.  I am reading that when decoded that they are from dates in the A.D.
http://www.pims.math.ca/pi/.
The results presented in [1] are most intriguing. The dates obtained were as follows:
Round Denderah zodiac - morning of March 20, 1185 A.D.
Long zodiac - April 22-26, 1168 A.D.
Big Esna zodiac - March 31 - April 3, 1394 A.D.
Small Esna zodiac - May 6-8, 1404 A.D.


This was from:  http://www.revisedhistory.org/egyptian-horo.htm





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users